If you are in a position where your communications are subject to public scrutiny and you create a policy of communicating in a way that avoids leaving a trail, you are not good at your job.
That cuts both ways in terms of what is subject to open records and easily discoverable (in a tort), and what one might not want to be subject to open records in Iowa. Or to hide put another way. Part of what transpired here would have some confidentiality due to both employment, PII and a/c privilege. I'm oversimplifying, but it's a fine line at the level Gary and those above him operated at (and operate at).
I'd respectfully suggest not being good at your job due to documentation might be different for Gary as an example and the director of strategic communication - athletics, or a professor. Should it be, and the obvious legal questions it raises are one thing and the way things are (reality) is another thing.
If you think KF, as an example, uses his state issued mobile devices etc., in all his communications I'm not sure what to tell you. gary would not be unlike that where it would be in his best interest to have some conversations face to face. And not document these, and later as time passes, forget the conversation.
I've described all of this in a way that makes all of this legal. There are some attorneys on here, they can weigh in. One good attorney. A couple that claim to be attorneys, which I'm not convinced they are based on their factually inaccurate posts on OT, and some of their "legal analysis".